Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Smt.S.Rath, Member.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated. Bolangir the 29th day of July 2015.
C.C.No. 10 of 2013.
Shaswat Hota, age-17 years son of Himanshu Kumar Hota, Minor, represented through father guardian Himanshu Kumar Hota, Resident of Linepara,P.O Linepara, P.S. Patnagarh, District- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
Sri Suresh Chandra Meher,Principal, Jawaharlal Collelge, Patnagarh,
At/P.O/P.S- Patnagarh, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv. For the complainant – None.
Adv. For the Opp.Party - Sri B.K.Mishra.
Date of filing of the case -06.02.2013
Date of order - 29.07.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
1. In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opp.Party.
2. The complainant Himansu Kumar Hota is representing his son Shaswat Hota a resident of Patnagarh has sought admission in +3 1st year in Jawaharlal College, Patnagarh under the provision of e-admission in the year 2012. The petitioner averred as per (DHE) the Director of Higher Education guideline he has made common Application Form (CAF) under the provision of e-admission but due to poor mark unable to take admission in optioned college.
3. It is further averred DHE invited second term application advising to file the form as per choice with necessary fees. The petitioner made application at Jawaharlal College, Patnagarh in paid of with application fee Rs 150/- vide receipt No.1316 dt.04.08.2012 and as per the DHE the merit list was prepared by the College, fixing the admission in between 21.08.2012 to 23.08.2012. The name of the petitioner lists in Sl.No.53 for physical Science and Sl.No.23 for computer Science faculty. On the date of 23.08.2012 reached the noted college to take admission and enquiry found respectively 2 seat for physical science and one seat for Computer Science was lying vacant. The Principal, assured admission will be available provided merit list/waiting list candidates defaulted in their presence and advising to come at 5 P.M. to know position of vacancy but the Principal denied to take admission in absence of specific instruction from DHE in taking further action.
4. The petitioner also added on 23rd August 2012 being the last admission, so scope survives to obtain any admission but in saving of the valuable year, took admission in +3 degree Science College, JITM, Bolangir at the cost of Rs 85,000/- .The Principal, played the mischief in disregard of DHE admission procedure harassing the complainant in depriving the fundamental right to education. Praying in the interest of justice, the person committed deficiency of service involving the act of arbitrariness and willfully misuse the Govt. guidelines, so be brought into purview of the act. Relied on +3 stream fee receipt in ;photo copy, Fee receipts School of basic science, DHE notification, RTI information obtained photo copies and affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Sahoo.
5. On being put to notice, the O.P appeared and filed the written version admitting the petitioner could not get any seat in the colleges opted by him, including the college of the opposite party due to less marks secured by him and contending the petitioner moved to Jawarhlal college, Patnagarh on dt.23.08.2012 for admission for his son. The O.P did not assured him on question admission nor discussed the DHE instruction guideline/procedure or assured him in to take admission on the vacant seat.
6. The O.P also submitted it is not the duty of the Principal to intimate all the desirous candidate individually and the list of eligible candidates was published on college notice board as per the Govt. guidelines of DHE. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, cheating by the O.P does not arise rather it is asserted the complainant was not present in on around of the college on the day of admission. The students names raised by the complainant as a matter of fact were admitted solely on the basis of merit as their names figured in the merit list. The allegation as made is false, cheap imaginary and concocted to draw sympathy from this forum. The case has no cause of action, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
7. Heard the submission of the complainant and counsel of the O.P and the vehemently denouncement of O.P in erudite manner. Arguments and documents at hand also perused. The relative finding as revealed.
8. The petitioner paid a fee of Rs 150/- on dated 04.08.2012.So in giving consideration, he is a consumer and the case is within the jurisdiction and also does not suffer barred of limitation.
9. It is an admitted fact the petitioner has filed common application form (CAF) as per the provision of e-admission of DHE by student Academic Management System (SAMS).Subsequently as per the instruction of DHE, the merit list was prepared and advised to take admission in between 21.08.2012 to 23.08.2012. It is also a fact 2 seat lying vacant in physical science and 01 seat for Computer science.
10. The contention of the petitioner was that head of the institution played mischief in non intimating the petitioner and mis-represented the fact that he has not sought any clarification from DHE, Odisha on the subject anymore.
11. Perusal of the documents at both end in conjoint reading reveals under common prospectus for the academic session-2012-13,Heading- under important notes para-7 speaks- Intimation letter to the sele4cted applicants will lbe transmitted through five modes:-
- SMS (if mobile number is provided in CAF).
- E-mail (if e-mal ID is provided in CAF.
- Website (WWW.dheorissa.in).
- College Notice Board (Applied college & selected college).
- Toll free Number (155335).Intimation through post has been withdrawn from the Academic Session -2012-13.
12. In view of the expressed defined clause, we considered no fault has been committed in compliance of the guideline as urged. Again no spot has been ensured and SAMS steering committee has not provided any list and the intimation procedure as outlined in the para-14 of the prospectus is not deviated and the list has been pasted on the college notice board as per the rule.
13. The other issues, meeting the officials, head of the institution and being present as per the advise of the Principal on the particular dated is not corroborated with any documentary evidence- even the pleadings in the petition is not verified nor supported by any affidavit. Later on the affidavit submitted by the complainant on evidence of presence to take admission on the date 23.08.2012 by one deponent named Ramesh Kumar Sahoo. The affidavit is found to be filed to vitiate the proceeding as because the excerpts from the petition, that we come across,” The petitioner requested to take admission of his son as because, there was no student present to take admission on that day except the son of one Ramesh Chandra Sahu of Patnagarh and the day was the last day for admission”.
14, The complainant also made submission, the deponent is ready to depose, which smells rats, the affirmations are not based on documents and rather on false belief. In our view the order for attendance of the deponent would not ordinarily be made unless the court is convinced that in the interests of justice, such a course is necessary; Held in Abdul Hameed Khan Vs. Mujeed –UI-Hasan, AIR 1975 A 11398: 1976 All LJ 194. It is found the affidavit content is not under oath in merit and not in rationale to be take into consideration. As because the person in deponent is not same as declared in the application, one is Ramesh Chandra Sahu and the other is Ramesh Kumar Sahu. So we considered the complainant has taken the path of heresay and concocted the story for other reason.
Thus in view of our discussion made above, the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit and it deserves no consideration, accordingly we hereby dismiss the same.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015.
I agree. I agree.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER PRESIDENT.
